The View From North Central Idaho

Two woman were brutally attacked by a nut-case with a knife.

One of the lessons to be learned is that fighting back is an option that should be given serious consideration. But for some reason the plans are to learn bare handed self-defense rather than get training in commonly available tools specifically designed for engaging an attacker from a distance out of range of edged weapons.

As I learned in knife school, if you get in a knife fight you are going to get cut. Unarmed versus knife and your odds are nearly 100% that you are going to be loosing precious bodily fluids.

Make it your gun versus their knife and your odds of requiring stitches or a coffin go way down.

Firearms instructors in the area should be offering their services to these women.

[H/T to Mike for the email pointer.]

The irony of tyrants is correct.

On Bill of Rights Day the city of Sacramento claims, and joins a lawsuit to prevent, the Second Amendment from applying to them.

They are going to lose. 100% guaranteed. It might even be a 9-0 vote but the chutzpah of their effort is amazing.

What next? Announcing segregated water fountains on Martin Luther King's Birthday?

Details on the Boomershoot 2010 Precision Rifle Clinic are now available. You don't have to participate in the main event to get coaching and shoot in the clinic.

The clinic fills up every year and Gene has lots of repeat attendees so you know people are getting their money's worth.

Sign up and learn how to turn money and time into earth shaking noise and smoke.

As a side note, Boomershoot statistics are here. Probably most interesting is that there are 110 participants and we have 11 bloggers-exactly 10%.

We will be having a blogger/media day again on Thursday April 22^nd.

These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute. Anybody that uses a semi-automatic to hunt is an animal assassin. You know, that's someone who would take an M-80 and throw it in a pond of water to kill fish.

Ralph Fascitelli
Board President of Washington Ceasefire
["Weapons of war"? Almost none of the proposed firearms to ban have been used as military issue firearms let alone used in a war zone. They are sporting arms in common use and protected the Second Amendment.

If he can get 200 rounds a minute out of my Ruger P89 (considered an "assault weapon" by his definition) then he is a far, far better shooter than me or anyone I know.

Any firearm can be used to kill something. So how does that bit of information contribute to the discussion?

"Animal assassin"? I have a feeling that phrase is going to be used to mock Fascitelli for quite some time. And why bring up hunting? What has hunting got to do with the right to keep and bear arms?

A M-80 thrown into a pond to kill fish makes someone an "animal assassin"? No wonder their side is losing. They can't make a cogent argument. He just wanders all over the place with his thoughts.

Every single sentence this guy said is either completely false or nonsensical. It's another case of Crap for Brains.--Joe]

I'm not a big fan of holidays and Christmas is particularly annoying. Barb and the girls on the other hand put quite bit of effort into Christmas and enjoy it a great deal. I contain myself and help out as best I can and not spoil it for others. But sometimes people pick up on my attitude anyway (it couldn't be the "Bah Humbug!" sweatshirt I wear every Christmas).

Daughter Xenia has been posting one Christmas picture per day this month starting here. All of them are good. Some of them are great.

My favorite so far is this one:

I suspect that picture was just for me.

As reported by Say Uncle, Dave Hardy, and Sebastian President Obama actually signed a bill into law Wednesday that would require passengers who carry firearms aboard AMTRAK be locked in boxes for their journey.

They claim "no one quite knows the origin of the mistake".

I have absolutely no data to support my suspicion but I would like someone to explore the hypothesis that it was not a mistake. It seems to me that would be a very clever way to defeat legislation you didn't like. Swap a word or ten in a 1000 page bill and who is going to notice until you drive your truck through the loophole you created or your political enemy gets dragged off to the gulag?

Some ignorant lawmakers (I repeat myself) announced they are going to attempt banning "assault weapons" in Washington State:

In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.

The lawmakers intend to propose the ban in the state legislative session that begins next month.

The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.

...

The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned

Sorry guys. That horse has already left the barn.

Do you remember that little phrase "in common use" phrased in the Heller decision?

Emphasis in the following is mine.

On page 2:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

...

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

On page 52:

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

On page 55:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

For the clueless bigots in Seattle what that means is that if you managed to get your proposed law passed the U.S. Supreme Court, if not the Washington State courts will overturn it. You know why? Because Obama was elected.

What? Yeah, you read that right.

When Obama won the election the U.S. population went on a gun buying spree the likes of which has never been seen before. The guns they bought were the very guns that those Seattle bigots want to ban. If they weren't already considered "in common use" before Obama's victory they sure are now.

And because of the delay from when a law is first proposed until the time it can become the law of the land anytime some lawmaker starts having the power to ban a particular type of gun the people will have put that gun into "common use" and thus render the law stillborn.

But if those knuckleheads want to waste their time on harassing activities I suppose that is better than some of the other things they might try.

[H/T to Chet at work and Ry for the pointer to the article.]

Update: Another article with video taken at the gun range where I go when in the Seattle area. And still another article which quotes Washington State AG Rob McKenna as saying, "If this bill is not even going to get a hearing, it is not worth a lot of energy".

Dad often remarked the Providence that led him to the only girl on the Abilene Christian College campus who kept a rifle in her dormitory closet.

Chris Knox
Introduction to Neal Knox--The Gun Rights War

[A gun in the woman's dormitory!

In the mid-1970s I knew kids that had guns in their dorm rooms too. But not anymore. We still have a lot of work to do to gain back all the ground we lost in the 20^th Century. And we have to do it without one of our best fighters--Neal Knox.

I'm just starting the book. I hope I can learn lessons applicable to our present date battles. I met and talked to Neal twice and was extremely impressed both times. I wish he were still with us to share both the triumphs he prepared for us (such as Heller and the upcoming victory in McDonald v. Chicago) and to help in our next fights.--Joe]

There was a book written nearly 40 years ago that sits on my bookshelf only partially read. I read about a third of it about 25 years ago and got bored with it. If I had the time I would pull it off the shelf and give it another try and see if what he said could not be done is true with today's computers. He claimed they will never be able to do some tasks. I am not entirely convinced such strong bets could be placed--if for no other reason than never is a very strong statement. But I do know that some revolutionary changes will have to be made before he can be proven wrong.

Chris has contributed some fascinating information to the discussion on exobrains. But not everyone may find it as fascinating or understandable as some of us geeks do. I hope to give a couple examples here that will be a little easier to relate to.

From a book I listened to recently I picked up an absolutely true insight that nearly caused a temporary meltdown of the control system of my muscular skeleton system. I nearly went deaf, blind, and limp as my brain dumped all I/O to the outside world and spent several seconds pondering the implications of that insight. What follows is a glimpse into the differences of computer "brains" and animal brains and highlights one area of tasks that are very, very difficult to do with todays computers and how much room for improvement there is. We may think computer hardware and software are really hot stuff. But when compared to meatware, for some tasks, its not even in the race.

We know how fast signals travel in the human nervous system. It isn't electrical as much as it is chemical. People frequently say it's electrical but, as Sean Flynn would say, that is only true for some values of electrical. Instead of signals taking about one nanosecond to travel one foot as is the case for true electrical signals it is (IIRC) something on the order of one millisecond per foot. About one million times slower. The "logic elements" of the brain have known response times as well. Thus by timing how long it takes for you to respond to some input we can determine how many "logic elements" were involved in making decisions based on the given input.

For example--suppose we were to show you set of random images that contain either a picture of some sort of cat (including leopards, lions, tigers, and domestic short hairs) or a picture of some sort of dog (including foxes, wolves, greyhounds, and Shih Tzus). You are to hit button "C" or "D" depending on whether it is a cat or a dog in the picture. If the pictures were clear and the animal was in full view normal, healthy humans could perform this task in well under one second. Even a three year old could do it. I've been programming computers professionally (admittedly in non-AI fields so this isn't as strong a statement as I would like it to be) for about 25 years but I think it would be possible to choose the set of pictures such that the best computer program, given the same time limits, would have an error rate would be little better than chance yet the human would have an error rate of near zero.

In a similar vein I once had someone at the CIA tell me they had spent millions and millions of dollars developing software that would analyze photographs and find objects of military interest. These would be things like tanks, missles, and AK-47s. When the CIA is interested in these type of objects the picture they get to work with were not taken with the full cooperation of the owners of said military hardware. Hence the objects of interest may be in less than full view of the person taking the picture and a considerably harder problem than the dog and cat problem outlined above. Said CIA employee told me that after spending all those millions of dollars what they found worked best was if they put the pictures on the wall above the urinal and left a pencil nearby. At the end of the day all the objects of military interest would be circled. No computer could match that in processing time, accuracy, or cost.

Once we subtract out the nerve transmission time from your eyes to your brain and from your brain to your fingers we find that the maximum "depth" of the "logic elements" is about 200. There were many, many elements working in parallel but no path exceeded 200 elements in length. There is no existing computer, no matter how massively parallel it's "logic elements" are, no matter how sophisticated the algorithms to take advantage of parallel processing power, that can reach a decision for the given problem with that sort of depth. The depth of the logic paths are going to be 100s of thousands of times deeper for the computer and yet it would end up with far, far, inferior decisions.

That still gives me goose bumps.

That sounds like something Jim would say. Except he would give excruciating detail about the method of execution.

Sean Flynn
December 16, 2009
In response to my suggestion that the U.S. Constitution should require any government employee who votes for or enforces a law or regulation that is later found to be unconstitutional is to be charged with and convicted for the crime of treason.
[Sean and I both like Jim.--Joe]

You knew he wasn't going to let us gun owners get off easy, right? Things have been going more than a little too smoothly.

Here's the scoop on the real plan:

Gun rights supporters have been shocked by the release of an internal campaign memo showing Obama planned to restrict gun access through fear and free market principles. The memo, drawn up in early 2008 with the help of Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, speculated that Obama's election would lead to a hording of guns and ammunition that would raise prices.

...

"The people going out and spending thousands of dollars on guns right now aren't the smartest and will spend beyond their means. We'll see them have to hock their guns and ammo for food and soon we'll be flooded with guns. This short term stimulus will come at a cost our children and grandchildren will have to bear," claims the Brady Campaign, an anti-gun organization.

Sources inside the Obama administration say that a "Cash for Carbines" program was in the works. Unlike the previous "Cash for Clunkers", it would simply use the gun buyback model to pay $40-$100 for guns that cost several times more, without encouraging buying more guns.

"We expect a "gun bubble" where prices crash after the market is saturated and gun owners put themselves deeply in debt. We'll swoop in and offer to buy back the guns. With current credit card interest rates and payment schedules we expect more guns turned in than were bought, making for a net drop in total guns," the source said.

The program would also include a "Cash for Cartridges" option where ammo could be bought cheap and distributed to police to ease the high cost of ammunition.

I have my doubts that Obama knows what the free market is, let alone is capable of using it to his advantage.

There is a conspiracy theorist for every data point--and almost as many satirists.

STI is going to be making a limited (200 pieces) run of one of their pistols for their 20th Anniversary. It will have a finish that many will consider too pretty to actually shoot:

TriTop slide with diamond LPI on top, decorative cuts on the dust cover, new STI 20th Anniversary serrations, STI presentation box, gold Titanium Nitride slide with Ion Bond black PVD frame and gold TiN and PVD'd exterior parts including the barrel.

They are taking orders now.

I shoot a STI gun in competition, I carry a STI gun and you should too.

When I read something like this:

Many experts and laymen consider gun control, which Democrats generally support and Republicans generally oppose, to be an essential component of anti-crime policy.

I just have to wonder what type of "expert" considers gun control to be an essential component of anti-crime policy.

The data doesn't support that claim and the number of criminalogists who advocate gun control is very small.

I keep thinking of this expert (full sized version here and here):

After all, nearly all advocates of gun control are socialists.

Caleb did well on Fox News against Dennis Henigan from the Brady Campaign.

When a young amateur goes up a seasoned professional in his prime you expect the professional to "mop the floor" with the young upstart. That didn't happen.

While it shows Caleb knows his stuff what it shows more than anything is the weakness of the Brady Campaign position.

Just as the Fourteenth Amendment extended protection of the enumerated rights of the first eight amendments to violations by state governments, so too did it extend federal protection of the pre-existing unenumerated rights "retained by the people."

Randy Barnett
Regarding the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
[Via a lead from Kevin.

What Barnett says may be the true intent of the 14^th Amendment but these days when someone questions whether something the Federal Government does is constitutional or not they look at you like you are nuts and ask, "Are you serious?"

This is Bill of Rights Day. Celebrate what you have left while you can.--Joe]

The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is performing it's intended function and the Supreme Court apparently agrees:

The Supreme Court has turned away a new challenge to a 2005 law that gives gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits by shooting victims.

The justices on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Hector Adames Jr. to revive his lawsuit against the Beretta U.S.A. Corp. over the accidental shooting death of his 13-year-old son.

Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.

John Kenneth Galbraith
[Being an economist himself he should know. Further evidence that other uses are somewhat questionable at best can be easily seen if you just look around a little bit (here for example).--Joe]

Here is what I think they don't get…It was their irresponsible risk-taking in many cases that brought the economy to collapse.

...

And they don't get in some cases that they wouldn't be where they are today, and they certainly would not be paying the bonuses they are paying today, if their government hadn't taken extraordinary actions.

Larry Summers
December 13, 2009
White House economic adviser referring to the banking industry. He also chairs the National Economic Council.
White House Lashes Out at Bankers
[In the first sentence he hopes you won't get it was Federal regulations which required irresponsible risk-taking. In the second sentence he hints that he knows this is true and that the U.S. government rewarded that same behavior.

If you think the government knows what it is doing in terms of the economy then you need to do more reading or if pictures and minimal words are all you are up for then check this out (via Linoge and John Lott):

--Joe]

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

Thomas Jefferson
[I was because this is true that the global warming hoax mongers were suppressing reason and opinions.--Joe]

Say Uncle wrote about our exobrains this morning then I went to work today and worked on the operating system for one. I fired off a build of the software and I happily noted that the CPU usage on the eight 3 GHz processors went to 98%. It pretty much stayed there for most of the two to three hours it took to do a build. The CPUs get some rest when it's writing a bunch of stuff to disk but still it's an impressive amount of CPU cycles being burned.

Then I wondered just how impressive is it? What does it really mean?

That computer can add 20 numbers together in the time it takes for light to travel one foot.

Eight 3 GHz processors are doing something on the order of 20 billion operations per second. And those "operations" aren't exactly trivial. Each operation is something like an addition, subtraction, multiplication, reading or writing a number. And those aren't just numbers like 0 through 10. The CPU can handle any number in the range from -2147483648 to +2147483647 just as easily as it can from -10 to +10. And while it is doing that it can keep up a running commentary telling me what it is doing at a rate that is far to fast for me to keep up.

Imagine you have every man, woman and child on this planet (about six billion) working on the same task they couldn't even do the raw arithmetic let along the communication and coordination at a rate that is even 1/100^th of what the little box under my desk can do. I have the brain power (for some tasks) exceeding the capacity of several earth-like planets complete sentient population at my disposal.

The exobrain of today is only about one 1/3 of a planets worth--but that isn't a bad start on a budding cyborg.

Did I also tell you we are working on project SkyNet?

Update: Some of the comments about this post here are absolutely awesome. To completely appreciate some of them require having read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Also closely related.

The TSA document I mentioned yesterday has raised quite a stir (via an IM from son James). They want to make it illegal to post the document.

This reminds me of a story about a psychology professor who asked his students to write down on a slip of paper and put in an box short phrases marketers had used that made the students one to buy a product. He then drew them out of the box to discuss them. The first one out of the box was "Under 17 not admitted without parent or guardian."

They don't want people to post it and they don't want you to have it. What do you think that is going to accomplish?

Yeah, I thought so too.

Get it here if you don't already have a copy.

In testifying and speaking in public, I frequently exposed the misleading references Rachel Carson had cited in her book, presenting her statements from Silent Spring and then reading the truth from the actual publications she was purporting to characterize. This revealed to the audiences just how untruthful and misleading the allegations of Silent Spring really were.

Now, nearly 30 years later, the controversy is still boiling about how truthful Rachel Carson was. I recently learned that a movie honoring Rachel Carson and Silent Spring is being made for television. Because I believe such a movie would further misinform the public, the media, and our legislators, I decided to type up my original rough notes from 1962-1963 and make them available. Here they are, page by page, starting with her dedication.

Dr. J. Gordon Edwards
The Lies of Rachel Carson
[H/T to David for the link.

I remember reading Silent Spring in about 1970. It made quite an impression on me as it did millions of other people. I think the copy of the book I read is still on the bookshelf of my parents house.

Reading Edwards notes I realize her half-truths were the same type of propaganda that the anti-gun people propagate today. What she did was not carelessness, ignorance, or a series of honest mistakes. She pulled tidbits out of references that clearly did not support her conclusions or the impression her book portrayed. She had to be doing that deliberately. The same is true of many of the anti-gun writings. When you check their references you find the source concludes something completely different or (as in the case of Michael A. Bellesiles) does not even exist.

The global warming hoax (H/T to Phil for the link), the ecology hoaxes, the anti-gun material and many others all come from the political left. Why is that? Is their desire for control over people so great they will do nearly anything? Sure we have lots of examples of leftists (Stalin, Pol Pot, China, and Nazi Germany for example) where they will do horrible things to consolidate and keep power political power. But even on a much smaller scale it seems to result in the same sort of thing--total lack of ethics, morality, and respect for human life.

I sometimes can't help but think that "if it saves just one life" then people advocating leftists political beliefs should be imprisoned or exiled. But that would be using the very same warped ethical behavior as they do.--Joe]

A week ago I received an email from a TSA worker asking how to better be able to detect bombs and explosives. I considered the possibility that the person might actually be trying to get something by TSA rather than working for them. But as the conversation progressed it seemed less and less likely. I gave him a few links and apparently he read quite a bit on both my blog and others because he specifically mentioned Breda's adventures with the TSA.

In one long email he defended the TSA and the job they were doing. I asked if he would like for me to post it so it could get a little more exposure and he said he would like that. I then said:

Before I post it I would like to ask you a few questions. Let’s start with:

So given that I’m pretty sure I could get a few cups of flour in my carryon bag, and an ounce or so of black powder and matches on via a body cavity if nothing else. You know that I can bring down the plane with it, right (http://www.joehuffman.org/FlashTek/06-FFFFgFlour.mpeg)?

So if you can’t stop that then what is the point of doing 90% of the other searches and tests?

He responded with:

[Stuff that was apparently identifying -- so I deleted it.--Joe]

Obviously that doesn't really answer the question--what is the point of TSA if there is an easy way to defeat it? Security is a like a chain. It's only as strong as its weakest link.

I haven't heard back from him and that was over two days ago. So, even though I didn't get my questions answered I'm posting his defense of the TSA:

Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:19 AM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: Re: Hey Joe

I've been reading through the blogs about TSA. A lot of it seems to be first-hand experience taken to another level with speculation about motives, means, and why we do what we do.

Like ammo, for instance, our ETD's don't detect ammunition or residue. Come to us after a week of shooting and making home-made ammo and you'll only look dirty, but pass all of our security, as long as you don't have the ammo or the gun. We just work harder every day with testing and training to detect prohibited items and IED's, whether whole or in part.

Doesn't feel so good to see a lot of crap posted about you and your job without people being there to understand, and like I've said in the past, the only fully secure air travel is none at all, but while Americans travel the skies we'll be there to make sure they make it home to their families in one piece.

It is rewarding, because nothing blows up or goes down. Those kind of professions aren't suited for everyone because there is no actual number to be put up for security, and at the end of the month you can't see results unless you understand that the quiet is the result, however TSA isn't perfect (which is an understatement, as threats evolve we must evolve to detect and deter) but while there have been no major, or for that case, minor hijackings, shootings, killings, etc, that I know of and no terrorists on flights what-so-ever, I can see results.

It may not be easy, but while there are people on flights to or from my airport, I'll be giving 100% to make sure they get there safely. I could never live knowing something went wrong because I didn't screen people doing everything according to the SOP and then some. And while you work with the traveling public who will you hear the most, people who are satisfied, or those who have a bone to pick?

Want to be pissed because you have to take off your shoes? Thank Richard Reid.
Want to be pissed because you can't take your water? Thank those terrorists in England.
Most of what we can't say isn't because we don't want to, it's not that we don't trust you or want to talk down to you like a parent, like no-answers or 'because it has to be' or 'because we say so,' it's always a matter of security. Ask the troops where they are, what kinds of weapons they have and where they store them, how many people they have on guard at night, what the sensitive parts of the bases are, etc, and what will you get? Answers that don't make sence or no answers at all. Same thing. If we have an open forum where all of what we do comes out, who wins? The Americans who whine and complain, and the terrorists who just got all of our methods, sizes, and modes on a silver platter.

Doesn't mean we don't want to tell you everything, like why we have to screen your prosthetics, or what the ETD's look for, or what types of metal alarm the MD, etc. It's not up to us, and the ones who make the decisions say people will get hurt if we do talk freely, just like the military. We can't be armed with weapons, so we're armed with as much knowledge and electronic tools as the government can standardize and ship. Some of the best X-Ray and ETD machines in any country, and the world finest training for such a large force.

But, just when you hope we can do better, TSA accidently releases our Screening Management SOP, not ecactly how we do everything, but what to do with everyone. More like where the battles were and not how they were armed, but still damaging.

Should be hitting the web today or tomorrow, very not cool.

But anyways, I'm going to bed, try to have a nice day Joe.

Sincerely,

I'm almost overcome with the temptation to comment on and tear apart what he says but I somehow don't see that as quite fair.

I think the question I posed to him about bringing down a plane with materials found in nearly every kitchen (substitute ground match heads for the black powder) is sufficient rebuttal in the present context.

What can you really say to someone that demonstrates how to defeat $2 Billion a year spent on security with $2 worth of materials you can find in grandmas kitchen?

Sometimes the anti-gun people are just so "out there" I'm not even sure they can believe the stuff they say. Case in point:

After the attacks of September 11, 2001 and subsequent terrorist attacks on trains, Amtrak took steps to make their trains safer. But the gun lobby still continues to push guns into every corner of our society, even at the expense of public safety.

Nearly everything is wrong about this:

• Guns were not involved, except they were forbidden to the victims, in the September 11 attacks and the following terrorist attacks on trains.
• They may have "took steps to make their trains safer" that doesn't mean they actually did make them safer. TSA makes planes less safe and almost for certain what Amtrak did does too. It's all about Security Theater, not actual security.
• The gun lobby isn't "pushing guns into every corner of our society" any more than the ACLU is pushing free speech, the NAACP is pushing blacks, or the ADL is pushing Jews into every corner of our society. The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right guaranteed by the U.S. and most state constitutions. It is an inalienable right recognized by the people that wrote the constitutions and has been a part of our society since long before they wrote those documents.

I find it hard to imagine that even the anti-gun bigots believe the crap they say and write.

Sebastian rolls his eyes, so to speak, over the reaction from the anti-gun people too.

This is addressed to Pete Sessions, but it serves as an open letter to the Party.  I don't for a minute expect it to go anywhere, or make a difference if it did, and I could think of several ways to make it better after the fact, but someone has to say it.

Pete,

"The Obama/Pelosi agenda has been proven to be a failure…"

That’s true, but what exactly is the Republican agenda?  Remember Bush’s prescription drug entitlement, TARP, and the fact that McCain supported TARP and the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hoax?  I sure do.

It is well and good to point out the Democrats' mental problems and their anti American mindset, but I’m looking for some distinction between Dems and Republicans other than the message I’m getting now, which is, "Give us money—we’re not as corrupt as those other guys."
 
In my lifetime the distinction has been, More Socialism Faster, verses More Socialism Slower.  No thanks.  I want to see your plan for;

A) Dismantling socialist programs in the U.S. (going back to the Wilson Administration and un-doing the damage).  This would involve the elimination of multiple government "departments" and laying off thousands of federal government workers (if they're worth something, they'll thrive in the private sector. If they're not, they shouldn't have been hired in the first place) so as to allow the markets to do what they do best—excel, by weeding out the poor performers and elevating the best performers.

B) Holding accountable those who have promoted or supported socialism (government intervention in the markets for the purpose of social engeneering, i.e. economic stagnation and the erosion of property rights) of any kind within the halls of government.  That would include, but not be limited to, charges of fraud and/or racketeering and/or misappropriation of public funds against the perpetrators of the AGW hoax.

C) Restoring compliance with, and faith in, the U.S. constitution.

D) Cutting tax rates across the board to a small fraction of their current levels, thereby moving boldly forward in restoring capitalism and the liberty and prosperity that comes along with it.
 
The socialist/Progressive movement has been gaining ground in this country for over 100 years, and all that time the Republican Party has been there, either in idleness, in complacency, or themselves actively leading us down this rat hole.  I have had enough.  Do not ask me to take you seriously until you’ve demonstrated some seriousness of your own, plus some clarity, specificity and bold action with regard to the above points.

Sincerely,

Lyle

I'm not supporting any squishy, cowardly Republicans and neither should you.  There is no time for playing games.

In a grim scenario we've seen all too often in the news, 20 year old college student Jason Hamilton reportedly burst into a classroom on Wednesday and opened fire at a small community college in Virginia. After two shots, however, his rifle jammed. Not only that, he missed both times. Not surprisingly, Hamilton's father is furious.

...

In failing to check the bolt action of his brand new firearm, Jason Hamilton didn't just let himself down, he let his community down.

Local news reporters were also disappointed with Hamilton's performance on Wednesday. The event forced the cadre of journalists into the cold for a boring press conference about a crime that didn't quite happen for a story that would only last a day at best. The story had all the elements of a barn-burner news meme: a stressed and mentally unbalanced college student, a link to the ongoing debate over gun control, and eerie proximity to the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It had everything going for it. Everything but actual victims, that is. If he had managed to pull it off, they would be sitting on a goldmine: weeks worth of easy copy and the warm glow of the national spotlight. But no, it didn't bleed so it didn't lead. As it was, not a single cable news network bothered to send a satellite truck. Perhaps that's why the headline in the local paper read, "Thanks for Nothing, Asshole."

Frank
December 10, 2009
Father Deeply Disappointed in Son's Failed Murder/Suicide
[There is more than a little truth in this satire but he left out references to the Brady Campaign, the VPC, etc. getting all dressed up for the dance in the blood and not finding any blood.--Joe]

The phrase "we (I) (you) simply must -" designates something that need not be done. "That goes without saying" is a red warning. "Of course" means you had best check it yourself. These small-change clichés and others like them when read correctly, are reliable channel markers.

Lazarus Long
A character of Robert Heinlein in his book Time Enough For Love
[Challenging assumptions is sometimes surprisingly easy. It will make you stand out from others as being brilliant, crazy, or both. For practice apply it to global warming, health care "reform", and gun control. Then expand the application of these tests to other political imperatives and even everyday life.

The appropriateness of Heinlein's wisdom is probably endless.--Joe]

TSA has many layers of security to keep the traveling public safe and to constantly adapt to evolving threats. TSA is confident that screening procedures currently in place remain strong.

The TSA Blog
December 7, 2009
TSA Response to Leaked Standard Operating Procedures
[See also this article (via email from Chuck): Massive TSA Security Breach As Agency Gives Away Its Secrets--Online Posting Reveals a "How To" for Terrorists to Get Through Airport Security.

I received an email about it early this morning from a TSA agent but he asked me not to mention it until it become more widely known. I'm expecting to post an email from him on my blog about TSA in general within a day or so. We've been having a pleasant discussion for several days now.

In regards to the TSA statement I quoted above I would just like to say the Emperor has no clothes.--Joe]

Why don't they get it? They can't possible understand the issue if they think this makes sense:

The terrible irony is that where there are more guns, there is more opposition to gun control.

Just change "gun" to "mixed race marriages", "homosexuals", or "Jews". Then tell me again about the irony.

In Canada they spent about $2 Billion dollars for their firearms registry. For that $2 Billion dollars they registered about seven million guns. That is about $285 per gun. And they probably didn't get more than about half of them. There was widespread disobedience.

In the U.S. there are about 300 million guns in circulation. Assuming the cost of registration per gun does not go up (and I have some novel ideas for increasing the cost that we came up with when the issue came in up Washington State back in '97.) The total bill for firearm registration would be over $85 Billion.

Expect that price tab to be very, very conservative. Not only was the Canadian effort implemented nearly 15 years ago U.S. gun owners might not play nearly as nice as the Canadian gun owners did.

I love the possibilities:

You can buy a car from an out-of-state dealer and pick it up there. You can buy a house in another part of the country, as speculators unwisely did during the real estate bubble, sight unseen. But even though the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms -- and presumably to buy them -- you can't purchase a handgun while you're visiting another state.

A gun rights group has sued the Justice Department to overturn this prohibition, which became law as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the case is now in front of U.S. District Judge James Robertson in Washington, D.C.

But it should be no surprise that the anti-gun people don't want to discuss the case on the merits:

While this may be an intricate legal question that only lawyers might fully appreciate, it offers a glimpse into how the legal system operates in practice. Courts don't always reach -- they're often hesitant to reach -- broad questions about a law's constitutionality. Procedural rules are hugely important.

In this case, for instance, the Obama administration appears to have taken the position that there's no way for anyone to challenge the 1968 Gun Control Act on Second Amendment grounds unless they're arrested for violating it first. Any volunteers?

I also like it that the American Civil Liberties Union is on our side on this one.

The gun-control law is a monument erected to the memory of our daughters.

Suzanne Laplante-Edward
December 7, 2009
Gun Control Issue Reveals a Changing Canada
Her daughter, Anne-Marie, was killed in the Montreal shooting in 1989.
[That explains so much. I wondered what that law was for.

Her daughter would have been far better off had she had a gun of her own and appropriate training on how to use it to defend innocent life. The $2 billion spend on the registry would have been better spend on arming and training people at risk of being victims instead of attempting to disarm more victims.

Update: And the next time you want to build a $2 Billion monument--use your own money and don't hassle other people in the process.--Joe]